Wednesday, October 21, 2009

America's Forced March to the Left

The drug-induced anti-authority, anti-discipline, hippie era of the '60s combined with America's drubbing in Vietnam and the spectacular birth of the Black Power and feminist movements led America to become ever more contemptuous of right-of-center thought.

Because that is more a movement of passion than of reason, it has--outside the hard sciences--rapidly accelerated in zeal, power, and influence, which has led to leftist thinking dominating society's mind molders: the colleges and the media: including most of the major newspapers, book and magazine publishers, and TV news networks, led by CNN.

That, of course, is bringing about, not withstanding occasional pauses, an ever more leftward-leaning electorate, which has resulted in the election of the most radical president in American history. And the leftward trend is accelerating yet further. He's only been in office for nine months and already, he has taken over the nation's largest car company and all college lending from banks, mortgaged our children's future by forcing through a wildly cavalier "stimulus," plan, filled with leftist policies--for example, transportation spending designed to force us out of our cars and into wildly time-wasting mass transit. Most dangerous, ObamaCare will ensure that taxpayers will die earlier by providing health insurance to everyone, without regard to their ability to pay, including, after he gives them amnesty, the 12-to-20 million illegals. You can't provide health care for 43 million more people with the same numbers of doctors, nurses, MRI machines, operating rooms, etc., without killing more people--Already, over 100,000 people die of medical errors every year. And to ensure that his dragging of America leftward accelerates, he's skirted Congress by naming 37 czars to move America ever leftward.

The only remaining major mass-media sources of conservative thought are the admittedly sometimes overwrought (e.g., Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck) Fox News and some conservative radio talk show hosts, notably Rush Limbaugh. And now, the White House and its complicit media, is trying to eliminate even their relatively small influence. For example, the media ridicules Limbaugh while promoting such equally biased and frothing leftists as former sportscaster, now Obaman pit bull Keith Olbermann. Limbaugh's drug problem was exploited viciously by the media, and now, with frighteningly little evidence, the media is tarring Limbaugh as a racist, the worst epithet that, today, can be bestowed. It's McCarthyism from the Left.

And to assault the last bastion of right-of-center thought, the White House is refusing to provide access to Fox News, the only major news organization to seriously question Obama policies: the many hard leftists on the Obama campaign team (not to mention his white-hating pastor of 20 years Jeremiah Wright,) ObamaCare, his massive expansion of government, the Acorn scandals, skirting Congress by creating more than 30 leftist czarships, etc. Ironically, the Pew Charitable Trusts found that Fox provided the presidential campaign's most fair and balanced coverage.

Let me be clear, I do not like many of Fox News's rightwing lightweights. But listen, for example, to the regular Fox News debates among the likes of Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol on the right and Juan Williams and Mara Liasson on the left and I think you'd be hard-pressed to broad-brush dismiss Fox News.

Compare those with CNN "debates," in which CNN regularly pits a brilliant leftist such as Paul Begala or Julian Epstein against a lightweight conservative such as Bay Buchanan or Alex Castellanos. That's like the president of the American League pitting his best home-run hitter against a minor leaguer from the National League in a home-run hitting contest. That hardly proves that the American League has better hitters.

Do you truly believe America will be better now that we are significantly exposed only to left-of-center ideas? If the country veers ever more leftward? Are the following ideas so apriori wrong that they should be given short shrift and in many cases, outright censored: individual responsibility, discipline, order, fiscal restraint, meritocracy rather than reverse discrimination, free-market versus big government solutions, a clear-eyed look at the pros and cons of providing another amnesty for illegals, the science behind global warming, the risk-reward ratios of "environment-saving" restrictions on our lives, a fair-minded risk/reward analysis of nuclear energy and of ObamaCare, and more careful stewardship of our tax dollars?

As readers of this blog know, I hold some liberal views, many libertarian and a few conservative ones, but perhaps most important, I believe society is, by far, best when we are exposed to the full range of benevolently derived ideas. Alas, America has raced toward ensuring that we are exposed overwhelmingly to leftist views. That trend has rapidly accelerated under President Obama and his complicit media.

Lord Acton said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Obama is verging on absolute power and is using it to stifle all dissent. That worries me.

13 comments:

Marina said...

It's interesting that you mention Fox news as the last bastion of conservative thought and seem to hold it apart from the leftist movement that stems from passion, not reason. I like getting reasoned opinions from both sides of the issue to deepen my understanding of it. I think it's a disservice to people to substitute passion for reason in issues such as health care where any action requires a complicated cost benefit analysis, not a "you're killing grandma" vs. "you don't want healthcare for the young and poor" type of debate. However, I don't think Fox news contributes to that sort of intellectual discussion. They counterbalance overzealous liberal passion by pulling just as hard, and just as unreasonably, in the other direction. Not much I see there actually deepens my understanding of the situation. What bothers me the most is that they won’t even admit to it. “Fox news is your source for fair and balanced news.” Come on, who are they kidding? If the country needs a conservative counterpoint to CNN, we are in really bad shape if there is nothing better than Fox News.

Marty Nemko said...

Marina,

All TV news and analysis, not just Fox, paints in broad brushes (ever listen to Rachel Maddow?.

I DO wish there was more thoughtful nuanced coverage from the left and the right. For now, C-SPAN is my favorite.

For example, I am proud of my radio shows in which I hold debates on major issues such as "Should we have single-payer health care," with world-class protagonists on each side--no straw men. You can hear all my NPR-San Francisco radio shows for free on my site: www.martynemko.com.

Anonymous said...

Lately, I have not felt like I am part of a group, especially politically. Whether the label is Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, none of them seem to be a very good fit.

I do not like how divisive the country has become, not just in the past 8 years, but this year as well. This year the split seems worse than ever, and I just saw our current president on a video
saying that "Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves" while the so-called "other side, they just kind of do what they’re told..." Does that sound like bipartisanship to you?

Nobody is really taking the lead to bring all sides, which seem to be distancing themselves more and more, together toward a common goal. Fox will continue to be seen by the left as right-wing and "the enemies of America"
while most of the rest of the media will be seen by the right as in the tank for Obama.


If and when this country falls apart, most of us, who are just trying to get ourselves and our family through the day no matter what side we're on, will then wonder what happened.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'm stumped. Obama is the most radical president in US history?

Johnson, domestically, was more radical, as was Roosevelt.

Lincoln was far more radical - he moved to increase the power of the Federal government enormously, and freed Sherman to exact his revenge against the States which had tried to leave. He completely rewrought the Constitution and the balance of power between the various States and between the States and the Feds.

One could argue that domestically Nixon was to the left of where Obama is now; Nixon seriously considered abolishing welfare and distributing cash to the poor. Nixon created the EPA. Nixon imposed direct Federal control on wages and prices throughout the economy.

Internationally, Obama is popular but in his most important (in an inverse Benthamist sense - the greatest harm to the greatest number) policies, he is as center-right as Bush: he maintains Bush's foreign policy in Iraq and appears to be gearing up to amplify it in Afghanistan. I heard only the second half of the surprise national address in the the morning last week. I honestly thought for the first two minutes that what I was hearing was an extremely articulate explanation of why we had invaded Iran.

I hate to tell you this, but you actually do live in a center-right country. Your team has basically won. Neither CNN nor Olberman is a leftist in the sense that (for the cheap thrills) Limbaugh or (for people who read books without pictures) Bill Safire is (was) to the right.

Olberman, in particular, is as leftist as John Fogerty of Creedence is authentically emotional. Olberman gave Obama a complete pass on his u-turn on preservering Executive surveillance authority and on handouts to bankers. If these were terrible policies under Bush - and they were - how is it that they are suddenly tolerable or good policies? Olberman likes to hear himself rant, as Fogerty liked to hear himself force apparent emotion. Go back and listen to Lodi, and remember: he can always sing it that way.

Anonymous said...

Anybody concerned about where Obama could be taking this country might want to look at this.


"Voters in this small city (Kinston, NC) decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party. The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their 'candidates of choice' - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black. The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want."

I don't live in this town, but I hate that it has been publicly declared by our government that I cannot think or choose for myself because of who I am.

If the people of Kinston allow this to stand, where will this happen next? Who will be affected then? Which group will be branded as so infantile they can't think for themselves?

Anonymous said...

Actually, Marty, I'm willing to bet that the move to the left (and if such a thing is happening is open to debate) has a lot to do with the hyperbolic, paranoid, sectarian, and irrational claims of the divisive right which makes a habit of name calling, cherry picking facts, and refusal to compromise - and then has the temerity to accuse the left of being partisan. Pot meeteth kettle. Particularly when critics of the president haven't even given him a year to upright the country in the wake of the worst president in living history.

I actually agree, however, right or wrong, the right is a dead-end ideology. And good riddance.

Hans said...

Why does your blog attract so many Obama sympathizers, Marty, when you aren't one yourself? It has to be because you're on NPR. Some liberals hear your show, check out your blog and then rush to defend their ideology.

Anonymous said...

Hans is a perfect example of where the Right is failing...keep it up boy, kill your own party and your own ideals.

Anonymous said...

Here is an article
in today's Wall Street Journal.

From the article: "Senior White House political adviser David Axelrod said his opponents in Congress are absorbed with defeating Mr. Obama's health-care overhaul, what he calls 'the shiny object that they've chased.' As a result, he contends, other measures have been left to pass into law."

Chasing a shiny object? Meanwhile, our country is changing. That's what our representatives, all of them on both sides, think of us.

Dave said...

The Left has hijacked everything from the media and universities to mainline Protestant Christianity - the wellspring of our culture. They have even adopted Nietzsche as one of their own! Nietzsche was not an atheist. He was also aware of the problems of multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism, atheism, materialism and homosexuality will bring about a society that is morally and culturally bankrupt. It is anthropologically foolhardy for us to continue on this path.

Marty Nemko said...

Dave, I do not begin to understand why homosexuality is a problem. Who one sleeps with has no negative impact on society. Indeed many gays and lesbians turn out to be fine parents. And some of our finest creative people as well as countless contributors from all walks life are homosexual.

I also do not agree that Protestantism is THE wellspring of our culture. Catholics and Jews, have contributed mightily.

In creating a good society, just as I urge the left to be more tolerant to un-PC points of view, people like rightwingers like the previous commenter must weigh, issue by issue, what truly is likely to abet and damage society.

Anonymous said...

Comments like the one accepted about the average IQ potential of folks from the Subcontinent may be, for you, innocuous enough but you seem genuinely surprised by some of the themes in play.

I know a lot of it is stuff you don't endorse and wish honestly that you could separate into well-intentioned, reasoned discourse on contentious topics.

It's not clear that it can be separated very well.

Some of the folks who are interested in Protestantism and heterosexuality are telling their own creation myth of the United States: a nation for and about Northern Europeans. The shining city on the hill imagery in US history dates to John Winthrop quoting Matthew and carries with it explicit rejection of Catholicism. Rejection of Judaism was natural at the time for the English; pogroms and forced expulsions were still happening frequently throughout Europe. The blood libels still had currency as fact [the Jews had killed Christian children and used their blood in matzoh; the Jews had desecrated the consecated host - quite literally had desecrated the body of Christ - it doesn't have traction for you and me, but for devout Christians of the day, the consecrated host was in actual fact Jesus.]

Sadly, there are plenty of folks in the US who still hold the blood libels to be true (Henry Ford, for instance) and far more who think the US once was an ideal of religous and racial purity which it never, in fact, was. I think there are people who would rather see us ruled by the original colonists (religious extremists driven as much by their own hatred of Catholics as by their 'persecution' at home) than by the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

A biography of Winthrop and a glance through the abysmal treatment of the early colonies in any high school textbook are strongly recommended for anyone who's interested in thinking more about the context for 'Protestantism is our core' rhetoric.

Also, you might want to read Stormfront for a bit. They've been driving traffic to your site now for awhile.

Marty Nemko said...

I am sad that a neo-Nazi organization would want to drive traffic to my site.

 

blogger templates | Make Money Online